That great English writer, G.K. Chesterton once claimed that: “Tradition means giving a vote to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead…Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death(Chesterton).” An astute observation. It is a maxim that the monolith institution of education would do well to contemplate and observe. This does not mean education as the act of learning, but the way by which one learns what one learns. As with many other institutions, the established method of education has been demolished. The combined arrogance of the living masses has said, “Why respect the dead? Why use the established methods?” But then forgotten to address adequately the equally important question: “Why not?”

The progressive living have questioned the slower dead, and eventually find that the democracy of the dead answers back implacably: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me(Job 38:2-3).”

Before proceeding to definitions, the purpose of this paper should be clarified. It is not to argue that classical education should be reinstated exactly as it was, nor that all modern methods have no worth. The purpose of this paper is to show that the classical education should not be dismissed so quickly, and at least the fundamental methods and spirit of it should be resurrected. Now, on to definitions.

To define method. Method is that which education (the institution) uses to teach students. It is the model used. It is the structural backbone of the process—the set of rules by which the game is played. These rules may be strict, or loose, but they are rules nonetheless. The structure may be complex or simple, but nonetheless it is structure. One of these structures, one of these sets of rules—a “tradition” and “democracy of the dead”—that has fallen by the wayside is the classical education. The form of education that the vast democracy aforementioned learned by. The form in which some of the most formidable minds ever were forged and sharpened. Beginning perhaps with Socrates, and continuing down through the ages. The founders of the United States were trained in this way, authors such as J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and war heroes such as Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.

Classical education also needs to be defined. It has been established that it is a time-honored method of learning. Tracy Lee Simmons says of classical education:

We find that, in an instructed age, the old regimen needs not only defending but also defining. Once classical education pointed to an elite course of instruction based upon Greek and Latin, the two great languages of the classical world. But it also delved into the history, philosophy, literature, and art of the Greek and Roman worlds, affording over time to the more perspicacious devotees a remarkably high degree of cultural understanding, an understanding that endured and marked the learner for life. Classical education was classical immersion. Students in the great and exclusive Public Schools of England were once made to learn far more about the archons of Greek city-states and emperors of Rome, and commit to memory far more lines of Greek and Roman poetry and drama, than they ever had to learn about Tudors and Stuarts, about Chaucer and Shakespeare. But the languages never took second seat: mastering them came first, and doing so became the crowning achievement of a classical education. Why? Because knowledge and information were not quite enough.

Classical education did not set itself to instilling knowledge alone; it also sought to polish and refine. And neither rigor nor beauty in one’s use of language obtained firmly without Greek and Latin. Together they provided both a mental gymnastic and a training in taste. (Simmons 3).

For centuries, the Greek and Latin languages have been integral to an education—to a classical education. It is asked why study Latin which is essentially dead, and the old forms of Greek? It certainly is not economically practical, and won’t likely lead to a six-figure salary. It’s not progressive. It certainly doesn’t fit with the modern, ever more career oriented, education. M.D. Aeschliman comments:

Isaac Kandel was an English Jew who emigrated in 1908 from England to the United States, not out of persecution but out of a desire for more education and employment opportunities, like my own father from Geneva about a decade later. Highly educated at Manchester in the classics, German, and the new field of education, he went to America to do a doctorate in education at Teachers College, Columbia University, the national and international center of the “Progressive” educational movement identified with John Dewey. For twenty subsequent years, first as a doctoral student and then as a professor at Teachers College, Kandel was an appreciative “Progressive.” But in the 1930s he began to worry about the central tenets of the increasingly dominant educational Progressivism: a naive faith in the child’s capacity to direct his own learning; a derogation of books and learned traditions; a hatred or contempt for the civilized past and its achievements, including organized religion and ethics; a simplistic faith in the capacity of the natural-science paradigm to direct all personal and social growth; social and political utopianism; ethical relativism; and perpetual experimentalism(Aeschliman).

“A derogation of books and learned traditions.” This sounds eerily familiar. “A hatred or contempt for the civilized past and its achievements” or the “democracy of the dead.” Now a certain amount of progressiveness in education is acceptable, especially within certain fields. The field of science for example is quite fluid and so it is natural and acceptable that what is taught and even the method of teaching should change over time. However, methods in certain fields of education should not be so quickly razed, namely the fields to which a classical education applies: rhetoric, literature, history, language, and logic. Rhetoric, literature, history and language are all taught today, but in vastly different ways than of old. Logic is taught, but not nearly as much as it used to be.

The classical education trained the student how to think. Through a rigorous grounding in the aforementioned disciplines—through a training in formal logic—one learned to exercise the mental faculties in the way that Socrates, Plato, and many others did. As Simmons put it, it was a “mental gymnastic.” The classical education was about addressing problems by a certain method. It is a sort of strength conditioner, but also a lens by which the student views the world. The classical education was about learning the Greek and Latin languages and the history connected to them. It is this attitude: “Come now, let us reason together…(Isaiah).” Let us reason together by a well proven method. Let us reason together as Socrates reasoned, as Aristotle reasoned, as Tolkien reasoned, and as Chamberlain reasoned.

Perhaps this is too much to ask in the current age. But at the least, the classical education could involve a thorough grounding in the history, the thought, and religion of western civilization, for the classical education is by nature a product of the west. Whether the current western institutions like it or not, the classical education is their inheritance. The directed, mental gymnastics program—the inheritance—was rejected and replaced too quickly and too violently with, “a naïve faith in the child’s capacity to direct his own learning.” The democracy of the dead has been silenced by the oligarchy of the living.

Works Cited

Aeschliman, M.D. “Why We Always Need Socrates: Some Unfashionable, Unprogressive Thoughts on Teachers, Teaching, Curriculum, and the Theory of Knowledge, with Reference and Thanks to Socrates, Pascal, and C.S. Lewis.” Journal of Education (2007).

The dictionary defines discipline as: “the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience.” Discipline is an unsavory, yet necessary character. He is needed in almost every area of life, if only to restrain vices. In ancient Greece, the Spartan considered discipline the most important thing one could possess.
Discipline is important in war. Without discipline there would either be no victories, or they would turn into anarchic affairs at one point or another. If one takes away all discipline in war, one sees mass slaughter of civilians, among other atrocities. Without discipline one truly sees Darwin’s principle played out: “survival of the fittest”, in the ugliest fashion possible among humans. In reality, World War II and Hitler’s regime play a prime example of lack of moral discipline in war. In fiction Sauron in The Lord of the Rings, and President Snow in The Hunger Games. In The Lord of the Rings, Sauron shows no moral discipline in war, anything and everything is “available” from his point of view, to be bent to his own purposes. The way in which his armies behave in war, and in individual battles, demonstrates a lack of discipline. The orcs frequently fight amongst themselves, sometimes slaying their own comrades. When the orcs march on Helm’s Deep, or Minas Tirith, they are more like a vast wave throwing itself recklessly against rock, than an orderly formation. In Collins’ trilogy one sees not only lack of moral discipline in war on the part of one side, but an insatiable appetite for it. The so called “hunger games” are the ultimate lack of discipline in war. A punishment annually for “crimes” so long in the forgotten past that they only have the ambiguous “Dark Times” for a name. Lack of discipline is fatal in all three of the aforementioned case-studies.
Discipline is important in academics. Discipline is related to the word disciple which means: “a follower or student of a teacher, leader, or philosophy”. If you disciple yourself to somebody you are claiming to attempt to emulate their actions, which by its very nature entails in some cases forcing yourself to do something against the natural bodily instinct. Without discipline of one form or another, education quickly fails. Indeed, without discipline, education can even become harmful. Being too zealous for knowledge is just as much a disease as being to zealous for power. Of either of these, Sauruman is far more guilty of the former than of the latter.
Discipline is important in life, in general. Or perhaps more accurately (and to be more specific), moral choices in life need discipline. Morality–a state of being moral–requires discipline. Without discipline morality is well nigh impossible. Morality and discipline could in a sense be said to be synonyms. Both require in some situations, mere force of will, a resolution to “keep slogging on.” While in some senses, especially physical, one can have discipline with out morality, one cannot have morality without discipline, and, in most cases one does require morality for proper discipline.
Discipline and morality are closely interrelated. When, in The Lord of the Rings, Frodo carries the Ring to Mount Doom, it requires both discipline and morality. When he claims the Ring for his own, it is the result of both of these breaking down; they both bring each other crashing down simultaneously.

What are the essential qualities of a great leader? Lincoln was noted for his integrity, to the point of his life becoming almost a proverb. In the end perhaps three qualities are what make a great leader. They are: loyalty to God, integrity and fortitude.
Loyalty to God is essential, for if a leader does not have the approval of God, then he is doomed to failure, even if he is, say, a president and his entire country approves of him and his actions. Israel, of the Old Testament, when it and its kings turned away from God, suffered, among other consequences: plague, enslavement, attack from foreign countries and the death of their kings. If a leader does not follow God, he will be doomed from the start.
Integrity is essential for a leader. If a leader does not have integrity, if he cannot be trusted, than he certainly cannot be a leader. Look at Hitler. He lied to his country, he lied to other countries, he lied to himself, and it bred dissent and disloyalty from within, which eventually, was probably the very thing that led to the downfall of the Third Reich. Not necessarily resistance and war from other countries, though these certainly sped things along. In the end, because of the fact that he (a) did not follow God and (b) did not have integrity, even if the Allies had not attacked, he and his regime would have eventually been cast down by his own country. Indeed, several attempts were made.
Fortitude is essential. If a leader does not have fortitude, if he does not have courage, if he does not have the courage to fight, physically or otherwise, than, (continuing with the theme of a leader of a country) he will fail. Consider Chamberlain, though he certainly had some amount of courage, (he met and negotiated with Hitler multiple times) he was unable to bring himself to declare war on Nazi Germany until Hitler had already seized the Rhineland, stolen Austria, almost literally with the people’s consent, however dubious, and annexed Czecho-slavakia. A hesitant, doubtful leader does not make a good leader.
If one is not loyal to God, than one cannot expect God’s blessing, whether leader or otherwise. If one does not have integrity than one cannot expect the loyalty of the people one leads. And if one does not have fortitude, the courage to fight, than one will not be able to properly defend the people one leads.

Let us consider a historical situation. The July 20th attempt on Hitler’s life. Was it right to resist political, social and economical change with such drastic, violent measures? Four other men were killed in the attempt, while, incidentally the blast failed to kill Hitler.
Consider some of the atrocities committed by Hitler and his henchmen. The slaughter of the Jews, something at least some of the conspirators had knowledge of, taking by force most of Europe and a large portion of the Soviet Union, lying repeatedly and pathologically to just about everyone, in his country and other countries. Should the people who viewed this as wrong merely have sat around and turned the other cheek to be slapped again? First of all the conspirators were not acting for their own selfish interests, but rather after considering the ruin and devastation Hitler had brought to Europe. Had it been merely the few hundred involved in the conspiracy being persecuted, perhaps turning the other cheek would have been better.
If the U.S. Government were to become corrupt, would it be just to forcibly remove the offending leaders from power? It would be legal. The constitution gives the people the right and means to unseat the government should it become too powerful and turn away from the principles it was founded on.
If the whole of the nation, or at a smaller level, the whole of state, was put in jeopardy, in various ways, would it be right to remove the government and rebuild it?
Considering that these aforementioned offending leaders have the power to cause a great amount of harm to the nation, to the people, to the principles the nation is founded on, than certainly the unhappy duty of removing them would have to be performed.

In today’s society, the idea that one culture could be superior to another has become and idea met with distaste, and horror. Of course, a country can be superior in military might, or in technology, most would have a hard time debating that, however distasteful the idea might be to them. There are many ways a culture can be superior to another: in its governing system, academic system, and its religion.
Let us examine the first one: governing system. A democratic governing system can be superior to a dictatorial regime. Most would agree that the United States had a form of governing superior to Adolph Hitler’s Third Reich. However, now it has gotten so that the idea that one culture might be superior to another is almost political heresy; either as a result of being fearful of other countries opinions of our own, or a general breakdown of morals and truth. Going along with the previous example, democracy can be superior to national socialism.
Now, can a culture’s academic system can also be superior to another? Consider the United States’ form of schooling (flawed as it is) and compare it to various Islamic countries in the middle-east. Whether or not we’re afraid of treading on their proverbial toes, it would have to be agreed, that at least in some areas, the United States’ form of education is better.
If we consider religion, however horrifying this is to some, it would have to be said that some religions are very much superior to others. For example, Christianity to atheism, look at where atheism, particularly evolutionism has gotten us. Or Christianity to Islam, most would agree that a peaceful policy of “turning the other cheek”, is better that finding a conveniently crowded place to blow yourself up in as a form of “spreading your professed religion.
One culture can be superior to another. It can be superior in its governing system, in its educational system and in its religious system. Of all these, the one that will influence the other two the most is religion. Even an atheist might be forced to agree that Christianity is better than various forms of extremism encouraged by other religions.

Without civilization technology would not have advanced as it has (albeit its debatable as to the good of some of that technology), the great works of literature, i.e. Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, would never have been composed or written down. If man had not come together to form a town, or tribe, or city, there would have been relatively little need for writing, there would have been none of the corporate effort needed for construction of technologies or monuments such as the pyramids.
The Greeks considered a couple of things essential to civilization. To illustrate this, let us consider what they considered the antithesis of civilization, the figures from their mythology, the cyclops. Homer says the cyclops did not farm (didn’t sow or reap), nor did they cooperate with each other, each looked out for himself. They had no cities, no institutes or schools, etc. From this we can glean that what the Greeks considered necessary for civilization was agriculture -the sowing and reaping of crops- and institutes or schools, cities and organized religion.
Without a body of people coming together, writing would never have been developed, and epics like the Odyssey or the Epic of Gilgamesh, would never have been written down, if even ever composed.
Without agriculture, no cities would have ever developed, as man would have been forced to move about in pursuit of game.
Civilization develops because of a group of people coming together and farming instead of moving around, because of technologies like the wheel, because of organized learning and religion that take away the necessity of moving about, because of the advantages of not having to fend for one’s self.

Let us consider the Third Reich. How did this mighty empire rise from a dysfunctional republic, which in turn had risen from a ruined monarchy? Why did the empire that Hitler created fall?
We will use the Third Reich as an example of the rise and fall of nations. How did the Third Reich rise from the ruins and ashes of the Weimar Republic? Why was this tyrannical empire allowed, by the people, very much with their consent, to rise? First let us consider circumstances, prior history. The nation that Hitler fashioned the Third Reich out of was in a state of extreme economic ruin, at one point it took four billion German marks to equal one American dollar. The military and nation was severely limited by the treaty of Versailles. So we could say that bitterness and lack of positive external influences led to the rise of Hitler’s empire. The people were desperate and were willing to grasp at any chance at a regaining of what they considered their honor.
How do nations fall? How did the Third Reich fall?
Nations fall for multiple reasons. External influences partially brought about the fall of the Third Reich. But so did the choices of the government and the people. Hitler and the government made many tactical mistakes, among them the breaking of the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. The breaking down of integrity very much had an influence on the nation, it very much hastened its fall. Of course the choices of the people had a part in the fall of the Reich, many of them, very quickly, became disillusioned with Hitler and his one thousand year empire. Almost twenty attempts on his life were made by his own people.
The rise and fall of nations has many factors, the choices of the leaders, the choices of the people, the rise and fall of morals and many other reasons.

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.